Advisory Panel on Judicial Diversity: Annual Report

Lord McNally: The report of the Advisory Panel on Judicial Diversity, chaired by Baroness Neuberger, was published in February 2010. It contained 53 recommendations, one of which was that a Judicial Diversity Task Force, comprising the Ministry of Justice, senior members of the judiciary, the Judicial Appointments Commission, the Bar Council, the Law Society and Institute of Legal Executives, be constituted to oversee implementation of the recommendations.
	Once established, the task force met for the first time in March 2010, and accepted the recommendations of the advisory panel and committed to their implementation, subject to consideration of the financial and resourcing implications.
	One year on from the inaugural meeting, the task force met to discuss progress. I have deposited in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the first annual report, Improving Judicial DiversityReport May 2011, from the Judicial Diversity Task Force, which details progress achieved to date.
	The report indicates that progress has and is being made in respect of all of the recommendations. However, we must not be complacent; there is a need for a much greater sense of urgency and commitment if we are to achieve meaningful improvements in the diversity of the judiciary and legal professions.
	The statistics contained within the report show that there is a significant way to go, which can only be achieved through concerted action by all involved, the Executive, the judiciary, the JAC and the legal professions to ensure that a person's gender, race, religion, disability or sexuality is not a barrier to becoming a judge.
	The judiciary can only become more diverse if those who are eligible to apply are equally diverse. It is therefore just as important to ensure that the legal professions themselves maintain the pool of diverse talented individuals, that they address the issue of retention within the professions and also undertake proactive initiatives to publicise the positive benefits that can be achieved through a judicial career.
	The role of the task force will therefore be to provide a firm hand upon the tiller. Our common aim must be to remove the barriers, whether real or perceived, so that we attain our goal of improving the diversity of the judiciary by 2020.

Climate Change

Lord Henley: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has today made the following Statement.
	This morning I will launch Climate Resilient Infrastructure: Preparing for a Changing Climate. This outlines the Government's vision for an infrastructure network that is prepared for the future changing climate to help protect the economy and its future growth. The document encourages a much stronger focus on adapting infrastructure to the impacts of climate change as part of a green economy.
	Publishing this document fulfils a commitment made last year, when the Government launched the country's first ever national infrastructure plan, to publish a document focusing on adapting infrastructure in the energy, ICT, transport and water sectors.
	The document makes it clear that climate change will have significant implications for infrastructure in particular from more unpredictable extreme weather. Higher temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events ranging from drought to freezing winters, mean it is necessary to look now at how to prepare new and existing infrastructure for the impacts of climate change.
	This approach will help minimise risks of disruption to infrastructure and higher economic costs to business and the country from climate change. That is why my department's business plan has a priority to support a strong and sustainable green economy, resilient to climate change; adapting infrastructure to the impacts of climate change is a key part of delivering on this priority.
	Hundreds of experts in infrastructure and engineering have been engaged throughout this work to provide a thorough analysis of the challenges and potential solutions to increasing the climate resilience of infrastructure. Climate resilient infrastructure makes the case for action, identifying who needs to act, the challenges they may face, the opportunities available and how Government can assist.
	The infrastructure we rely on to keep the country running is already vulnerable to severe weather; this risk will only increase if we are not proactive and adapt to climate change. The document I am launching today emphasises the importance of early action now to minimise this risk. Importantly, it also sets out the economic opportunities climate change could present to our leading infrastructure and engineering companies.
	The document covers UK government policy in England and in the UK for reserved matters. The House will be updated on progress made in implementing the actions in the document when the Government publish their first adaptation programme, required by the Climate Change Act in response to the climate change risk assessment due in January 2012.
	I have arranged for copies of Climate Resilient Infrastructure: Preparing for a Changing Climate to be placed in the Vote Office. The document is also available on Defra's website at www.defra.gov.uk.

Correction to Commons Written Ministerial Statement

Earl Howe: My right honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Simon Burns) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I regret there was an error in my Written Statement issued on 4 March (Official Report, cols. 49-50ws).
	The cost of a full bespoke human hair wig was given as £239.65. The correct cost is £239.45.

Rosemary Nelson Inquiry

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Owen Paterson) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to inform the House that the report of the Rosemary Nelson inquiry, chaired by Sir Michael Morland, will be published on Monday 23 May 2011.
	In my Written Statement to this House on 5 April, I confirmed that the process to check the report in order to meet the obligations on me in relation to Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and national security had been completed, and that the report could be published in full. I have advised Sir Michael Morland of this. Monday 23 May is the earliest date on which the report can be published given the recent Assembly elections in Northern Ireland and the need to make the relevant arrangements for publication.
	I will make a Statement to this House at the time when the report is published. With the permission of the Speaker, I confirm that I will allow an opportunity for members of the family of Rosemary Nelson, as well as the other represented parties at the inquiry, to see the report privately and be briefed by their lawyers on its contents, some hours before the report is published. Some Members of this House will similarly have an opportunity to see the report in advance of publication, to enable them to respond to the Statement made to this House at the time of publication.

School Teachers' Review Body

Lord Hill of Oareford: My honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove) made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The 20th report of the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) is being published today, making recommendations on the matters referred to it in October 2010. These were whether there should be a limit on the value of discretions that can be applied to head teachers' pay and on a pay uplift for those unqualified teachers who earn £21,000 or less. I am grateful for the careful consideration which the STRB has given to these matters. Copies of the STRB's 20th report are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of the House, and online at http://www.education.gov.uk and http://www. ome.uk.com/.
	The STRB has made recommendations concerning limits on the discretions that can be applied to head teachers' pay; and processes to ensure a focus on effective governance and rigorous justification for rates of pay which reflect the nature and degree of challenge required for a head teacher's post.
	I am grateful to the STRB for these recommendations which, subject to consultees' views, I intend to accept.
	The STRB has recommended that a non-consolidated payment of £250 should be made to those unqualified teachers who earn £21,000 or less; that the £250 is pro-rated for part-time unqualified teachers; and that consultation should seek to identify a simple and cost-effective method of payment.
	As indicated in my Statement of 21 March 2011, subject to consultees' views, I intend to accept these recommendations.
	My detailed response contains further information on these issues.
	Annex to Written Ministerial Statement of 9 May 2011
	Department For Education
	School Teachers' Review Body's (STRB's) recommendations and response from the Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove).
	[The following sets out the full set of recommendations from the STRB and published in the 20th report (CM 8037) on 9 May 2011, together with the response from the Secretary of State for Education. The STRB's recommendations below are in bold.]
	The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): The 20th report of the STRB is being published today. It covers matters referred to the STRB in October 2010. Copies are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and in the Libraries of the House and online at http://www.education.gov.uk and http://www.ome.uk.com/.
	In making its recommendations, the STRB was required to have regard to items a-e set out in the remit letter of 27 October 2010. This report covers whether there should be a limit on the value of discretions that can be applied to head teachers' pay and on a pay uplift for those unqualified teachers who earn £21,000 or less. I am grateful for the careful attention the STRB has given to these matters. I am inviting comments on the STRB's report and my response to its recommendations by 3 June 2011.
	Limit on the value of discretions that can be applied to head teachers' pay
	The STRB has recommended that:
	there should be an overall limit on the discretions that can be applied to head teachers' pay;
	there should be a "base" individual school range (ISR) for a head teacher clearly defined in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) and it should be the normal expectation that this remuneration covers the head teacher's full role;
	any discretions above "base" ISR should be used only when clearly justified and the total of all discretions should not exceed the limit of 25 per cent above the individual's point on their "base" ISR in any given year;
	governing bodies should ensure they have oversight of all the contractual arrangements and income streams applying to the head teacher; and
	it should be wholly exceptional to exceed the limit of 25 per cent above "base" ISR, but where it is necessary to consider an exception, a business case must be presented to the full governing body, which must seek external independent advice in reaching its decision.
	The STRB has also further recommended that:
	the department re-draft the provisions in the STPCD to give effect to our recommendations, including in particular:
	making clear it should be the normal expectation that the remuneration provided by the "base" ISR, as set out in paragraphs 4.55-4.57 of the report, should encompass all the responsibilities of a head teacher, for example the need to address improvement challenges in the "home" school and a wider contribution across the education system such as the sharing of good practice and liaison with other service providers; and making clear the role of the governing body in considering any wholly exceptional cases to exceed the limit. This must require the relevant committee to make a business case for the exception to the full governing body, which must itself seek external independent advice before making a decision on whether it is justifiable to exceed the limit and the amount of the total remuneration. There must be a clear audit trail for any advice given to the governing body and a full and proper record of all decisions and the reasoning behind them; seek better to align the structure of the STPCD so as to draw together in one place all existing discretions as they impact on head teachers and locate provisions on head teachers' pay alongside statements on head teachers' professional responsibilities; consider what arrangements should be put in place to monitor the use of exceptions to the limit on discretions; and consider how to give effect to our recommendation that governing bodies should ensure they have oversight of all the contractual arrangements and income streams applying to a head teacher, e.g. by a single contract for a head teacher, overseen by the governing body.
	I am grateful to the STRB for its detailed consideration of this issue and, subject to consultees' views, I intend to accept the main recommendations on matters that were referred to them. I will take account of its further recommendations when considering how best to give effect to revisions to the STPCD.
	Pay uplift for unqualified teachers earning £21,000 or less
	The STRB has recommended that:
	a non-consolidated payment of £250 be made in both years to all full-time teachers on points 1-3 of the unqualified teachers' scale;
	the £250 payment be pro-rated according to their working hours for part-time teachers on points 1-3 of the unqualified teachers' scale; and
	the department, as part of its consultative process, seeks views on a simple and cost-effective method of payment, and issues guidance as appropriate.
	As indicated in my Statement of 21 March 2011 I am grateful to the STRB for its consideration of this issue and, subject to consultees' views, I intend to implement the payment from September 2011. I also intend, subject to consultees' views, for the school's relevant body to decide how the £250 payment should be implemented.

Terrorism: 7 July Inquest

Baroness Neville-Jones: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Theresa May) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The coroner's verdicts into the deaths of those who were tragically killed on 7 July 2005 was handed down on 6 May.
	Lady Justice Hallett's inquests have been more wide ranging than any previous reports on the attacks, considering both whether the attacks were preventable, and the emergency service response to the attacks. We now have a comprehensive picture of what happened in the lead-up to that terrible day and on the day itself. I hope that the detailed, open and transparent inquests will have brought some measure of comfort to the families and to all of those affected by the events of 7 July 2005.
	Lady Justice Hallett has found that the deaths of the 52 victims of this atrocity could not have been prevented. In her concluding remarks she said that "the evidence I have heard does not justify the conclusion that any failings on the part of any organisation or individual caused or contributed to any of the deaths". The coroner has issued a report under Rule 43 of the Coroner's Rules 1984 with recommendations directed to me, the Director-General of the Security Service, the Secretary of State for Health, Transport for London, London Resilience Team, London Ambulance Service, the Barts and London NHS Trust. The report makes nine recommendations. The Government and the relevant agencies will now examine the coroner's report and recommendations in depth and respond, as quickly as possible, and within the 56-day period set by the coroner's rules. I will, of course, inform the House of the Government's response once it has been provided to Lady Justice Hallett.
	The Government, emergency responders and the security and intelligence community are constantly seeking to learn lessons and to improve the response to the terrorist threat we face. This includes learning from the 7 July attacks and from other incidents and there have been a considerable number of improvements made since 2005. The UK's counterterrorism strategy has continued to develop in response to the evolving terrorist threat and we intend to publish a revised version of that strategy before the summer.
	Our police and intelligence agencies work day in, day out, to keep our country safe but despite their efforts, it will never be possible to stop every single terrorist attack. It is important that we remain vigilant against the threat of terrorism.

UK Convergence Programme

Lord Sassoon: Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires the Government to report to Parliament, for its approval, an assessment of the UK's medium-term economic and budgetary position. This report then forms the basis of the convergence programme which the UK is obliged to submit annually to the European Commission under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the Lisbon Treaty).
	Article 126 is the legal basis for the stability and growth pact, which is the co-ordination mechanism for EU fiscal policies and requires member states to avoid excessive government deficits. Although the UK is bound by the stability and growth pact, by virtue of its protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, unlike other member states it is only required to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits.
	The Budget report and the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR's) Economic and Fiscal Outlook together comprise the Government's assessment of the UK's medium-term economic and budgetary position. Copies of these were deposited in the Library of the House on 23 March 2011. A small proportion of the content of the convergence programme may be drawn from other material that has already been presented to Parliament, such as last year's spending review. All of the information it contains has therefore already been published and made available to Members.
	A debate in this House has been scheduled for 12 May in order for the House to approve this assessment.
	The EU's deadline for receipt of the convergence programme was 30 April. This was set in accordance with the new European Semester combined timetable for both convergence and national reform programmes. The Government support the European Semester as an important development in the EU's overall surveillance framework. The UK's convergence programme was published on 26 April and was submitted to the European Commission on 28 April. The Commission was advised that the programme must be regarded as a draft until parliamentary debates have taken place. While the convergence programme itself is not subject to parliamentary approval, copies were deposited in the Library of the House upon publication and the document is available electronically via HM Treasury's website.
	In keeping with the recommendation of your Lordships' European Union Committee in its report The EU Strategy for Growth and the UK National Reform Programme, the 2011 national reform programme will be made available for joint debate alongside the convergence programme. The 2011 NRP was published on 28 April and copies were deposited in the Library of the House upon publication. It too is available electronically via HM Treasury's website.